Search

To correlate a radiological assessment of MR motion artifacts with the incidence of repeated sequences and delays derived from modality log files (MLFs) and investigate the suitability of log files for quantifying the operational impact of patient motion.An experienced, blinded neuroradiologist retrospectively evaluated one full calendar month of sequentially obtained clinical MR exams of the head and/or brain for the presence of motion artifacts using a previously defined clinical grading scale. MLF data were analyzed to extract the occurrence of repeated sequences during the examinations. Statistical analysis included the determination of 95% confidence intervals for repetition ratios, and Welch's t-test to exclude the hypothesis of equal means for different groups of sequences.A total of 213 examinations were evaluated, comprising 1681 MLF-documented sequences, from which 1580 were archived. Radiological motion assessment scores (0, none to 4, severe) were assigned to each archived sequence. Higher motion scores correlated with a higher MLF-derived repetition probability, reflected by the average motion scores assigned to sequences that would be repeated (group 1, mean=2.5), those that are a repeat (group 2, mean=1.9), and those that are not repeated (group 3, mean=1.1) within an exam. The hypothesis of equal means was rejected with P = 5.9 × 10Log file data may help assess patterns of scanner and exam performance and may be useful in identifying pitfalls to diagnostic imaging in a clinical environment, particularly with respect to patient motion.

Objective The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) has been widely applied to CT and MR liver observations in patients at high-risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigated the impact of CT vs MR in upgrading LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 5 observations using a large cohort of high-risk patients. Methods We performed a retrospective, longitudinal study of CT and MR radiographic reports (June 2013 - February 2017) with an assigned LI-RADS category. A final population of 757 individual scans and 212 high-risk patients had at least one LI-RADS 3 observation. Differences in observation time to progression between modalities were determined using uni- and multivariable analysis. Results Of the 212 patients with a LI-RADS 3 observation, 52 (25%) had progression to LI-RADS 5. Tp ranged from 64 - 818 days (median: 196 days). One hundred and three patients (49%) had MR and 109 patients (51%) had CT as their index study. Twenty-four patients with an MR index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during the follow-up interval, with progression rates of 22% (CI:13%-30%) at 1 year and 29% (CI:17%-40%) at 2 years. Twenty-eight patients with a CT index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during follow-up, with progression rates of 26% (CI:16%-35%) at 1 year and 31% (CI:19%-41%) at 2 years. Progression rates were not significantly different between patients whose LI-RADS 3 observation was initially diagnosed on MR vs CT (HR: 0.81, P = 0.44). Discussion MR and CT modalities are comparable for demonstrating progression from LI-RADS 3 to 5 for high risk patients.